Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - OCA

The appellants brought a defamation action against the respondents regarding an article in New Scientist Magazine questioning the reliability of a blood paternity test.

After a 13-day hybrid trial, the trial judge dismissed the action and awarded costs of $1,478,766.64 to the respondents.

The appellants appealed.

The respondents moved for security for costs on appeal, arguing the appeal was frivolous and vexatious and that the appellants had insufficient assets.

The appellants also sought to lift the automatic stay of the trial costs award.

The motion judge dismissed the respondents' motion, finding the appeal was not vexatious, the appellants had sufficient assets to pay appeal costs, and there was no financial hardship to the respondents warranting lifting the stay.

The appellant municipality appealed a trial judgment finding it liable under the Occupiers' Liability Act for catastrophic injuries sustained by the respondent at a municipal mountain bike park.

The respondent fell from a wooden obstacle and was rendered quadriplegic.

The trial judge found the municipality breached its duty of care by failing to post proper warning signs, negligently promoting the park, failing to monitor risks, and failing to provide an adequate progression of qualifiers.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's application of the duty of care, standard of care, causation, or assessment of contributory negligence.

A fire broke out in the appellants' garage while their son, the respondent, was working on his car.

The appellants' home insurer paid for the property damage and brought a subrogated action against the respondent's automobile insurer.

The trial judge dismissed the subrogated claim on the basis that the respondent was an unnamed insured under the homeowner's policy, and an insurer cannot subrogate against its own insured.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that the respondent fell within the policy's definition of an insured, had an insurable interest in the property based on the factual expectancy test, and that policy reasons strongly militated against allowing an insurer to sue its own insured.

The appellant appealed a decision refusing to set aside a default judgment.

She argued the judgment was signed irregularly before the 20-day service period elapsed and that she had a defence on the merits.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the judgment was signed irregularly, the appellant suffered no prejudice, and relief against the irregularity was granted under Rule 2.01.

Furthermore, the appellant had no defence on the merits as it was undisputed she received $600,000 from the sale of her property.

The appellant appealed an order striking her statement of claim against a defendant law firm.

The respondent conceded the motion judge erred in concluding the claim did not plead a cause of action, as the claim pleaded 'knowing assistance' in fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the motion judge's order, and granted the appellant leave to amend the statement of claim to provide sufficient particulars regarding the law firm's actual knowledge of the trust and participation in the breach.

The appellant appealed the judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's findings of fact or application of the law.

Costs were awarded to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $8,200.

The appellants appealed a trial judge's order awarding the respondent $70,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by fixing costs based on hourly rates exceeding the costs grid without a finding of special expertise, and by failing to consider whether the amount was fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay.

The appeal was allowed, and the costs award was reduced to $50,000.

The creditor union obtained an order for damages against a corporate debtor for violating a collective agreement.

The debtor subsequently incorporated a new company to evade the debt.

The creditor served notices of garnishment on a garnishee who owed money to the debtor.

The garnishee continued to pay the debtor under its new corporate name, claiming it owed no money to the specific entities listed on the garnishment notices.

The motions judge ordered the garnishee to pay the creditor, finding the garnishee knew the new company was the same debtor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the garnishee's appeal, holding that under Rule 60.08(16), the court has broad discretion to determine the rights and liabilities of a garnishee and prevent unjust evasion of garnishment obligations.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its action against the respondent insurance company.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the exclusion clause in the insurance policy was unambiguous and that the appellant's claim fell squarely within it.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $5,000.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision to strike a jury notice on the grounds of complexity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's discretion given the multiplicity of causes of action, defendants, heads of damages, and interlocking legal and factual issues.

The appellant appealed a decision, raising a challenge under section 2(b) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the lower court judge that a previous decision was determinative and that there was no evidentiary base to support the Charter challenge.

Costs were fixed at $12,500.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding the reasons of the lower court judge persuasive.

The respondent was awarded costs fixed at $9,000.

The appellants appealed a decision of the motions judge who refused leave to amend the statement of defence and granted summary judgment to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal held that the motions judge was required to hear the motion to amend first and had no basis to refuse leave under Rule 26.01.

The Court granted leave to amend the statement of defence and, finding that the amended pleadings raised genuine issues for trial, dismissed the respondent's motion for summary judgment.

The appellant appealed a trial decision that turned entirely on findings of fact.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's essential findings.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellants appealed an order made by Cumming J. The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, finding that the order was interlocutory and that any appeal from it must be directed to the Divisional Court with leave.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment decision by Swinton J. dismissing their claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's principles or application, as the appellants produced no evidence of publication by the respondents beyond a communication that was absolutely privileged.

The appellants appealed a trial judge's finding that they failed to meet the standard of care regarding the design of a carbonated beverage in a glass container.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions were well supported by evidence that the product was dangerous and the manufacturer failed to take steps to reduce the risk of explosion.

A cross-appeal seeking to vary the apportionment of negligence was also dismissed, as it did not meet the threshold of a very strong and exceptional case.

The appellant appealed a decision striking his statement of claim against a Crown Attorney for malicious prosecution.

The motion judge found the claim contained only a bald allegation of malice and refused leave to amend.

The Court of Appeal agreed, noting that the potential to infer malice from the absence of a reasonable prospect of conviction does not relieve a plaintiff from pleading full particulars under Rule 25.06(8).

The appeal was dismissed.

The landlord appealed the dismissal of its action for rent arrears against the tenants.

The trial judge had found that the landlord's demolition of a dilapidated barn and frame house on the 20-acre leased property constituted 'partial destruction of the premises' under the lease, thereby suspending the tenants' obligation to pay rent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge failed to interpret the lease as a whole to achieve a commercially sensible result.

The Court found that the term 'premises' in the destruction clause applied only to the private dwelling, and thus the demolition of the outbuildings did not suspend the rent obligation.

Judgment was granted for the total rent owing.

The appellant housing co-operative appealed from a Divisional Court decision that had decided the merits of a settled dispute concerning termination of a member's membership and occupancy rights.

The Court of Appeal held the matter was moot because the parties had fully settled and neither retained any live legal interest in the outcome.

Applying the mootness framework, the court declined to hear the appeal on the merits, finding the issues were not uniquely evasive of review and did not raise broad questions of public importance.

The Divisional Court should not have entertained the moot appeal.

Its order was set aside and the appeal was dismissed as moot, without costs.